spindrift, you are always good at articulating civilly and thoughtfully your fat-ski thoughts in ways that make me think.
Originally Posted by spindrift
7) For those citing stance width as a big deal. It might be worth considering that 1 cm is less than half an inch - so a ski that is 15mm "wider" (say going from 100 to 115) is 7.5 mm wider each side of the center. Or, rounding up, let's call it 1/3 of an inch. So the extra stance width you'd introduce by skis 15 mm wider at their widest (again, likely not the case with wider waisted modern skis) is a hair over a half inch total (between the two skis).
Another way to say this would be to say that if I had made my stick drawings to proper scale, it would probably be hard even to see the difference in leg angle without looking really closely. I think that's your point here. The absolute difference in body-ski geometry is measured in a few millimeters here and there when you are talking two skis that are only a cm or two different in width. Sure. That seems right. My argument is that you don't want to tell a boot fitter who is really on top of alignment topics, or the skier who has enjoyed the fruits of that fitter's work, that "a few millimeters" is nothing, or that it's barely detectable. On the contrary, most of us are all too familiar with the "princess and the pea" nature of very small changes in the geometry of how-foot-and-leg-meet-ski.
On top of that, it may be important to note that, for many of us, when we are talking about what it means to go from a 100mm ski to a 115mm ski (to use your 15mm example) we are already dealing with a certain amount of strain that comes from having moved already from a natural stance on a 70mm ski to a slightly less natural one on a 100mm ski. So we're already at the point where a little more width is pushing us out of a comfort zone. In other words, adding 15mm to a 70mm ski is one thing; adding it to a 100mm ski may be a different thing, when it comes to how the skier perceives it.